Thursday, November 29, 2012

Agenda 2016+: Freedom Always Wins

I said it’s time to get constructive and that’s my plan. I’m starting a new series today which will outline what I think the new agenda needs to be for the Republicans, both rhetorically and as a matter of policy. This isn’t about winning the 2016 election, it’s about creating an agenda and an image that will permanently win over the public and set America back on course. But before we talk policy, let’s start with a point on rhetoric.

Winning public arguments isn’t nearly as hard as you might think, though the Republicans don’t seem to get it. The Republicans make the mistake of treating politics like an intellectual discussion. It’s not. It’s a “yo mama so fat” contest on steroids. Statistics, detailed plans, subtle points of logic... all meaningless. The zinger, the soundbite and the “that sounds great” moment are the keys to victory.

A lot of people on our side don’t get this. They actually think the public will take the time to think through arguments, to consider each side carefully, to examine the long term effects, to do their own research to verify facts, and then to come to a reasoned conclusion. Good grief. Let’s be honest. The public are morons. They don’t know anything. They don’t process. They don’t stop and think. AND THEY DON’T CARE. They want an easy answer.

So what does this mean? It means that we need to learn to present our arguments in much simpler and punchier ways, ways the public can digest immediately and which will tell them how our plan will directly make their lives better.

It also means we don’t need to be as “truthful” as Republicans like to be. There is no reason to go into details on policies or even to explain what we really want. You just need to find the right promise to sell it. Obama never said how he was going to reform healthcare, he just said, “I’m going to fix it. . . I’m going to make sure you have it. . . I’m going to make sure it can’t be taken away.” That was his sales pitch and it worked. It blew away the Republican response of “we’ll remove barriers between the states to allow insurance carriers to compete.” Where in that laughable sales pitch does it ever tell a normal American how this will help them? Obama’s does: YOU will have healthcare. The Republican response doesn’t: INSURANCE COMPANIES will get more business. See the problem? Obama’s plan is easy to understand and has a direct benefit to anyone listening, the Republican plan requires the listener to work out all the missing steps and even then doesn’t actually promise them any guaranteed change. Obama wins.

In fact, the only thing which stopped Obama from winning this debate, believe it or not, was that Sarah Palin found a better zinger to take Obama’s sales pitch apart: “Death panels.” Notice how the argument is simple, memorable, meaningful, and personalized: Obama’s plan will let you die when you get really sick.

And the key word there are meaningful and personal. In other words, AVERAGE people (not bubble conservatives) could understand this, believe it and think it’s important TO THEM. This is why calling Obama a socialist is stupid. For one thing, no one outside the bubble believes it because he doesn’t talk like it and his policies aren’t obviously socialist. For another, it’s not meaningful because no average voter knows what his being a socialist will mean to them and they can’t see how that would change their lives in the least.

Anyway, this is the first lesson: drop the lectures and learn to speak in soundbites that are simple, easy to understand and which are meaningful to the average voter personally. And the big key is to come up with sales pitches that tell people how our policies will directly affect their lives. . . not some vague assurance that it will all work itself out if we do nothing.

Now, here’s the second lesson for the day. If you want to get voters to like you, you need to present an image that they associate with. Right now, the Republican Party likes to project an image from Norman Rockwell. . . a white, nuclear family from the 1950s with a stay at home mom, two smiling kids and a patriotic dad. That’s not how Americans like to see themselves, folks. Americans idolize the outsider. . . the underdog. . . the rebel. . . the free spirit. . . the risk taker. . . the rule breaker. So if you want voters to like you, you need to learn to frame your policies as supporting the underdog, the outsider, the rebel. Avoid sounding stuffy or rigid or status quo.

Now our final lesson. Americans love freedom. If you want to win, you ALWAYS need to frame your argument in terms of enhancing personal freedom. Now you and I know that in our world, you can’t give one person “freedom” without taking it from another. But that’s not the point. The point is that the public will side with the person who can best frame their argument as a matter of freedom. That’s why gay marriage and marijuana laws are inevitable, because they’ve been presented as a matter of personal freedom with no rebuttal about anyone losing their freedom. Americans will always opt for more freedom. . . that needs to be the focal point of any sales pitch.

To sum this up, the point is simple. Before we even get into policy, we need to change the way conservatives deliver their message. Stop trying to win the public with debating skills and instead learn the art of the soundbite and the quip. Sell policies to people as enhancing freedom and make sure they know how this will change their lives. And remember that to be seen as something people want to join, you need to present an image that makes them want to join.

114 comments:

I don't buy into the soundbites argument. People might not commit what a politician says beyond a certain point to memory, but if he merely offers catchphrases and beyond that, responds with a shrug, he (or she) won't be taken seriously by most voters.

Also, as I noted before, I don't think there is such a thing as permanently winning over the public. As I noted in the run-up to the 2012 elections (which I thought we'd win) the pendulum of power (on a national level) shifts back and forth quickly nowadays.

In 1992 the Democrats thought they were atop the world, in 1994 Republican were convinced the future was Republican, in 2000 and 2004 Republican were convinced that they had it all figured out, in 2006-2008 the Democrats were convince the future was on their side, in 2010 Repubicans were certain Obama would be a one termer, in 2012 Democrats are convinced that the future is on their side (unless the Republicans are hideously stupid, they will be proven wrong, again).

However, I do agree that framing things in terms of freedom works rather well. Few people (in America anyway) want to be against 'freedom'.

"The public are morons." You pretty much summed it up there! I agree, the GOP really needs to change their strategy to reflect that. Sadly, when it comes to politics, style is more important than substance.

I disagree with you that Conservatives must embrace Gay Marriage. We just need to stop taking about it excessively and advocating to keep it a state's rights issue. (I'm against it because it's still a relatively new concept, it's potential effects to society still needs to be examined closely. Plus making accommodations to a very small percent of the population would just cause more confusion. In the end of the day, social issues are the least of my worries.)

On marijuana laws, I personally don't care if those are legal or not. I'm not a stupid pothead. My huge problem are the advocates speading false science on weed. Instead of them just making it a freedom issue (like Ron and Rand Paul), they have to mindlessly glorify the drug. I have to admit, I do get a kick of it being illegal! Anything to make the lifes of hippies harder!

Right now, the Republican Party likes to project an image from Norman Rockwell. . . a white, nuclear family from the 1950s with a stay at home mom, two smiling kids and a patriotic dad. That’s not how Americans like to see themselves, folks. Americans idolize the outsider. . . the underdog. . . the rebel. . . the free spirit. . . the risk taker. . . the rule breaker. So if you want voters to like you, you need to learn to frame your policies as supporting the underdog, the outsider, the rebel. Avoid sounding stuffy or rigid or status quo.--------Interestingly, according to the internet (which never lies) the last single man to win the presidency was Grover Cleveland and that was over a century ago.

Granted, some married presidents haven't let marriage from stopping them from consorting with women not their wife, but a wife and a couple kids still seem to be a key part of the formula.

Still, I agree that throwing rocks at single parents is a stupid practice. I don't think they are morally inferior or anything (a marriage shouldn't last if only one person takes their vows seriously).

Andrew........This must be the article you were referring to in your last comments the last few days. Excellent.......This will provide us a forum to throw our ideas into the interwebs domain. Of course, the stoopid party will never adopt any of our awesome ideas, but it will be catharctic to hold forth.

Patriots Rules for Repubs:1. Always be on offense.2. NEVER explain3. Always question the questioners motives for asking the question4. Entertain the proles......Constantly put out 30 sec - 1 min vignettes dealing with a lib/dem issue that is funny and gets our point across5. Show the absolute worst that could possibly happen with a lib/dem policy-ALWAYS6. Present yourselves as the outsiders (even when in dc you are there fighting for the little guy ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"7. Use the most extreme examples of welfare/giveaways/food stamps as the reality - use them ALWAYS8. ALWAYS use a female (female minority ideally) as your spokesperson on ANY issue you are pushing9. Start thinking of your party as the Rebel Alliance fighting the Empire (the empire being global leftist domination) froma historical perspective10. Own the fight against centralized power over the ages. Present yourselves as always having been the bulwark against invasions, slaughter, Naziism, Communism, Empire11....and the biggest one of all.....FIGHT DAMMIT! If someone slaps you down, come back twice as hard with your female spokesperson accusing them of all sorts of nefarious thoughts, deeds and aims. And NO, it doesn't matter if they are "fair" "factual" or "based in reality" ATTACK!!

Re #7........Use the Obamaphone lady in every one of your ads/remarks about welfare. "Oh no Patriot...we can't....that would be RACIST!" No actually....it shows the most extreme example of the results of lib/dem policy applications. That's the type of attack we need to start presenting to the proles.

Re #1.......Have your female minority spokesperson (Mia Love / Condi Rice) go on TV and Sunday talk shows and hammer home the point that this president actively made the call to let Americans die horribly. No support......no military help....NOTHING. In graphic detail exaplin how Amb. Stevens was brutally killed. Use Ty Woods fathers' statements to show that this admin could give a shite about American lives (Bidens horselaugh comment about his son's bravery while his son's casket is right there) And for god's sake...personalize it......ask the rhetorical question "If you were an American traveling overseas and were either mistakenly or on purpose arrested in a foreign country, DO NOT expect this admin to come to your rescue. Tell yourself it would not be politically good for this president and his admin and then expect to die for your country like any good American would"

There may be something in the air, b/c since the election there are two major issues on which the GOP has been getting the rhetoric right. The only question is, will they follow through?

1. Loopholes and deductions: a number or Republicans have thrown Norquist under the bus and are talking about closing loopholes and capping/eliminating deductions in terms of sopping the rich. Sure, the Dems & MSM are trying vigorously to spin this back into protecting the rich, but if the Repubs hold fast to a "fairness" message, it will make the Dems' line absurd.

2. Susan Rice & Benghazi: They haven't let up on her and the woman is seriously damaged. MSM is reporting on the story like the GOP has a bug up its butt, but they are also floating the names of other Sec. of State contenders in the process. The Democrat-sympathetic press is on defense for Rice and the talk is that of a confirmation hearing even though she has yet to be nominated. If the GOP refuses to let up, the public will tire of the controversy and demand an alternate just to see it ended.

Anthony, I'm not saying "only catch phrases." What I am saying is they need to learn the art of the sales pitch. Right now they act like they are economic professors whenever they get in front of a camera. That doesn't work.

Take "death panels". If all Palin had said was "death panels" then no one would have known what she was talking about. She needed to back that up. And she did with a quick, common sense, easy to understand explanation of what she meant -- government rationing means a government bureaucrat will decide who lives and dies.

The normal Republican explanation would have delved into historical cost explanations, discussions about how budgets are always limited, how government will decide to limit procedures, etc. etc. and finish with the not at all strong but "fair" in the mind of the Republican... "so people will find that they may not get the care they want because the government will be unable to provide everyone with as much care they currently get from insurance providers." Again, that's not convincing because it doesn't really tell anyone anything, if they're even still listening.

On "permanent" I think it's very possible to become a permanent majority, but the reason we haven't is that both sides are basically offering the same thing -- and nobody like what either is offering. So as people get pissed off they just switch parties right now.

Snape, If you want proof, look at advertising. Advertisers understand their target audience... they only get paid if they can remain successful. They know that people are swayed by short, emotional appeals, by things that trigger the self-image people have, by herd-instinct appeals, and by the appearance of enough substance to back up their claims. They NEVER try to sell anything by (1) going into a complete explanation or (2) being "fair" and listing both pros and cons. The Republicans do.

Snape, I'm NOT saying that conservatives need to support gay marriage or marijuana laws. All I'm saying is that those sides are winning because they have turned those issues into questions of individual freedom. A strong case can be made that they are exactly the opposite, but conservatives have failed to make that case. Instead, they fought back with "it's immoral" and "it's bad for you." That is how things that were really 3-5% fringe views two decades ago have become 49.5% views today and will be 60% soon... they sold themselves as personal freedom and that went unchallenged.

Anthony, You've missed the point on the rebel/outsider. I'm not saying "nominate single men." What I'm saying is that it's about image.

The Democrats are seen as hip and young. Yet, if you look at their politicians, they are just as old (often older) and just as out of touch as ours. They are mostly gray-faced white men you wouldn't want to spend five minutes with because you know they are deathly dull. YET they have this image. And the reason they have this image is that they have cultivated it as young, hip, outsiders. They attend young and hip functions. They mix with current-celebrities, not just ancient actors and lounge singers. They don't whine about rap. They don't scream "slow down" and "get off my lawn." They don't keep trying to say, "the only good America is an American of the nuclear family."

The Republicans almost to a man present themselves as fuddy-duddies. They whine about a culture like the church lady does. They lament that things aren't as good "as they used to be when I was young." They denigrate everything new. And when they talk, they talk about the past. Obama talked about building a better tomorrow. Republicans talked about "returning to past glories."

They are projecting an attitude of "I wish it were 1950." They need to learn to project an attitude of "America is a great place, let's make it better."

Patriot, Exactly! Throw out any ideas you have! :) Though sadly, I think you are right that the Republicans won't ultimately listen.

I like your list.

On point 8, by the way, the Republicans did it again. They chose their committee chairs and didn't pick a single woman. Unbelievable. For a party that has an imagine problem with women to not even put a token woman in charge of a committee is utter blindness. And it shows just how much they don't get it.

I misunderstood your sales argument. I agree with you about the art of the sales pitch.

As for permanent majorities, I don't believe that is possible because parties invariably delude themselves about why they won majorities (its often as much about the other guy as them) and start pandering to their fringes, which triggers a backlash which eventually pushes them back into minority status. Then the cycle begins anew.

Patriot, I think the key on the "voice of the party" is to send out a variety of people. Right now they always send out the same 3-4 old guys. They need to learn that they need to send out minorities, younger members, women as well. And they need to train these people in the art of communication, and they need to arm them with facts.

They also need to learn the art of talking points. To get a unified message, you need to have people saying the same things, in the same ways. It's no coincidence that a dozen Democrats will suddenly use the same phrase into a dozen cameras at the same time. They coordinate. Sadly, the Republicans don't, because they don't understand that repetition makes things true in the mind of the public.

All those points of logic that we use to break down lies are reversed when it comes to influencing the public. The public falls for things like repetition. If enough people repeat a lie, the public will assume it must be true.

tryanmax, I've noticed that too. Well see though. Unfortunately, the usual suspects are on the other side. Talk radio is backing Norquist, and the squishies are starting to back off on Rice. But so far, everything does seem to be continuing in the right direction.

My one concern on the deduction thing, as I said the other day, is that they are just playing along rather than really aggressively shoving Obama on this. They need to really swing for a home run, not bunt and hope for a single.

In all seriousness, I actually like this article better than some of the recent ones--even though I do frequently wish it was 1950.

The point about being hip and all is well taken. Breitbart was the ultimate proof of this, winning people over with his personality as much as with his ideas (much as Greg Gutfeld is continuing to do). And one real bright spot for conservatives is the extent to which many have managed to exploit Twitter. Just look at Iowahawk, Adam Baldwin, and others.

Anthony, No problem. It's not often easy to be completely clear in these articles. :)

I do agree with you that becoming a permanent majority is nearly impossible because of the nature of politics. But I think we can go much further toward it if we fix the big problems with the party's appeal. Unfortunately, those problems are the core that drive the party. Tossing out Big Business, for example, will be incredibly hard since they finance the party.

Patriot, a corollary to #2: When you say something that gets blown into a controversy, ALWAYS double down. And if possible, make an issue of other, completely unrelated events. Makes it harder for any one thing to stick.

Example: Todd Akin said a lot of extreme things about Social Security, the student loan program, etc., but that wasn't what people remembered, it was the abortion thing. He shouldn't have said it, but once he did, he should never have run his "I ask for your forgiveness" ad, he should have moved on, and attacked McCaskill and the media right away. Might not have saved him, but it would have helped.

T-Rav, I'm glad you like the article. I think this is actually the real key to change. Image is everything and it's been shown over the years that you can project a very different image than your substance. The Republicans need to learn to do that.

I agree about Breitbart and Gutfeld. I think they "got it." They realized that conservatism needs to change its image. And they have both presented the image of hip outsiders -- the kind of people you want to get to know. That's what makes a party likable.

I've read the article, but don't have time right now to read the comments, and will try to respond later. I just want to say this for now: I can remember when a response to an insult was simply "Yo Mama!", and nothing more. LOL!

Andrew.......and the repubs need to put forth Anthony Weiner as the face of the lib/dem party. Constantly talk about him and his weirdness as the democrats. Let them defend him and try to write him off as not one of theirs. Then the repubs state..."Not one of yours?! He's married to someone whose family is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, who is the right hand woman of the Secy of State, comes from N frikkin Y, and is obessessed with peoples bodies...his mostly!"

I agree with your point and let me sum it up this way: the Republicans need to learn to practice the art of character assassination and of presenting the assassination victim as a central figure of the Democratic Party.

......and not only a central figure but the embodiment of their policies and feelings towards Americans.

Foe example...again....: Use "Obamaphone" lady as the typical lib/dem constituent. Say "This is why we want to review this or that policy" Notice the word 'review?' Not 'change' or 'eliminate' because then you've opened the doort to their b.s. responses. Who would question "review?"

Andrew - The problem with projecting an image of "young and hip" is that we are the party of the Adults with a capital A. We know what has come before because we have studied history and we are long range thinkers who understand "cause and effect". Liberals are the party of Children with a capital C and in their minds there IS no "cause and effect".

We need to figure out a way to make "responsibility" hip and cool again. Paying bills, spending within a budget, and show how the more the "Big G" government intercedes, the more personl freedoms we lose.

We need to show how Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Anthony Weiner et al. are screw ups because they are irresponsible. They refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions and have hurt this country whether by dead ambassadors or bad policies/personal behavior. We need to "Bork" the hell out of these people full time, all the time.

We need to show how "getting along to get along" kills hundreds of millions of innocent women and children around the world. By showing the faces of the victims especially in the Middle East. Exploit them with all we've got.

Bev, I don't think being adult and being hip are mutually exclusive. You can project an image of young and hip while also projecting an image of being responsible. It's the same way so many ads separate you into two parts -- responsible worker by day, party guy by night or on holidays. People love the idea of the responsible guy who has a wild side... they don't like people who are just responsible and they don't like people who just have the wild side.

The key is to have solid, responsible policies to attract the core conservative voters and to give the party the "responsible by day" side. BUT then you also need to loosen up the presentation, to stop complaining about the things the kids like, and to enjoy life more to give the party its hip side... think Vegas, not Branson, Missouri.

That would slowly get toward the ideal that Americans like the most -- responsible, but wild. Again, it's all about imagine... not necessarily substance.

There is one key however, with something like pot, you need a snappy counter argument that doesn't sound like "we hate fun," you need something that is easier for people to see that as "a bridge too far" in the fun department... your "irresponsibility kills" argument.

I agree that the attack on big government needs to be that it robs you of your freedom.

And I totally agree about Borking the hell out of every Democrats we can. It's time to make it intensely unpleasant to be a Democrat.

Bev, Very true. Don't forget, the image Hollywood sells America (one they like) is of the young professional, with a ton of money, living in a cool loft with a kick ass car, and a wild side at night... but solid professional, respectable side during the day. We need to get people thinking that voting for us will lead to them having that.

I think this is what the GOP needs to do, use soundbites. When I talk to those who do not follow politics, all they know are the soundbites that they hear or see in headlines on the internet, and that's all they know. It's difficult to have a discussion with them, at all, because they are just going to spew the same soundbites/talking points that they have heard over and over again. I understand the GOP thinks that people are reasonable, and a person is usually reasonable, but when dealing with the mass public, they certainly are not.

Jocelyn, your comment makes me slightly more charitable than before. I think Republicans are right that people are reasonable, but they always forget that people can only reason with the information they have. If the info doesn't make it through the soundbite, it's just not there to be considered. That's why Republicans and conservatives need to find the nuggets and just hammer them. e.g. "The rich hide their money in loopholes and deductions. Let's go after the money there."

I agree that the Republicans have been painted as the party of old white guys, yet they do almost nothing but perpetuate this image. Even when they do nominate a woman or a minority for a prominent position, the left and the media (same thing) paint them as brainless idiots, intellectual slaves, or insane god-botherers. And it sells to the public, because as you say, the public are morons.

The left is firmly in control of its own image and that of Republicans. Without reshaping entertainment, culture, and education to remove leftist influence, Republicans don’t have a chance at changing its image, let alone the image of the left. We know that the left is the party of greed, restriction of liberties, anti-science, and devolution of the culture, yet they successfully paint the Republicans with those stripes every time. I’m not saying Republicans aren’t greedy and stupid, because they often are, but the left feels no compunction to restrain itself when it can successfully lie to the public every time.

So I agree with Roger Simon, who says that Republicans have to get out of the business of social engineering. The religious right never does the Republicans favors, as they scare away as many votes as they might attract, then they often stay home in a huff when they don’t get exactly what they want. The Republican message must be “though I have personal feelings about that issue, I believe that is an issue that must be left to the family to decide. I cannot in good conscience impose more government control over the lives of Americans about an issue so personal.”

But yeah, Republicans have to stop being the party of amicable losers; the party of professorial politics; the party of compromise and concede. There is no reason to work with any Democrat when they will slander, libel, lie, and cheat to get what they want. The public already thinks the Republicans are obstructionists, and it doesn’t matter what compromise they reach with the Democrats since they will be blamed by the media anyway no matter what stance they take on issues.

The sound bite will help, but only if the media gets it out there. To that end, Breitbart was helpful, but his reach became pretty narrow with his death. When he was alive, he could seize control of the conversation just by showing up to press conferences. Now, we need more polarizing lightning rods that the rest of the media will spastically react to. The left knows that they control the popular talk shows, Hollywood, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and most newspapers, and the right only has influence over talk radio and FOX. All the left had to do was marginalize those two outlets, and the public would never hear an alternate viewpoint. Unless they somehow brought that lightning rod onto their shows to mock, and the lightning rod mocked them mercilessly in return.

But the left can successfully invade Republican media outlets, say something stupid, and amazingly have it stick. I saw one blogpost by some left leaning site comparing Romney to Fred Gwynn on the Munsters, and that very night concern trolls were coordinating phone calls to the Dennis Miller show imitating Fred Munster. It was a quick soundbite, stupid, and yet it was memorable, much more so than Miller’s defense of Romney as a likeable funny guy. The right has no such coordination.

I want to hear Republicans routinely address Democrats and their policies as “incredibly, unbelievably stupid.” Not “foolish.” “Deadly,” not “short sighted.” “Fascist”, not “socialist.” “Hateful”, not “narrow minded.” But that will only go so far unless that message reaches the stupid public, and that’s going to take overcoming 80 years of Democrat control over education and the 4th estate.

Jocelyn & tryanmax - you made me think of that exchange in Men in Black (which I will butcher, but you'll get the idea) J: "people are smart; they'd understand" K: "a person is smart; people are stupid and hysterical"

Unfortunately, I have seen recently that the "soundbite" and "diverse image" ideas are stronger than I had expected. An otherwise sensible, educated woman told me that her reason for voting for Obama was what she had heard about the "47%" and the diversity of the crowds at rallies. Seriously! That's what you are basing your choice on??

Jocelyn, I agree complete. You can have rational discussions in things like National Review and in other forums where people who really are interested in issues go to learn more. But when you're talking about the public... the soundbite rules the day. It's how most people "think" -- that's why advertisers do it too.

tryanmax, Compartmentalized is the word. No one thinks of themselves as one thing. Everyone thinks they are smart and responsible for the most part, they also want to believe they have a wild side. So when Republicans say it's either or, they are fundamentally misunderstanding the rest of the country. The Democrats get this, because they've learned that when it comes to image, you can be contradictory things and people will support you if they like either image... they don't need to like both.

tryanmax, One of the things you learn quickly as a lawyer is that you can never leave gaps for the jury to fill in... they don't do your job for you.

Consider this overly simplistic example: "X held the gun. X walked into the room with Y. Y was found dead. A bullet was pulled from Y."

Notice what's missing? You never connect X to the shooting. That may sound stupid because it's obviously there if you think about it, but the public doesn't think about it. They will not connect the dots for you. They just don't. If you want them to believe something, you need to provide every step in that chain of events.

That's a mistake Republicans have made for year. They say things like, "Hey, we'll open the market to competition for insurance carriers from other states.... great idea huh?" NO. The public will never provide the next couple steps, they will simply dismiss this as a nonsense response that doesn't address their concerns.

That's the problem. The Republicans have believed for too long that the public would fill in the blanks... they don't.

The soundbite theory is a way of giving them a whole theory without any blanks and without confusing them.

The Republicans shouted they were going to repeal Obamacare from the rooftops, they were a lot quieter about what they were going to replace it with so perhaps part of the problem was few heard the message.

The media can only slander us and control our image if we given them the ammo to do it. So we can change our image with a conscious effort. I've seen it happen several times before.

The problem is that our side CONSTANTLY reinforces these negative stereotypes. Look at the fact they made no women into committee chairs. Would making a woman into a committee chair have won us votes? No. But not making one into a committee chair reinforces the idea that Republicans don't like women and that loses us votes. It's just a steady stream of idiocy like that.

We are great at the self-inflicted wound.

Honestly, I think the problem is a generational one. I think that the old guys running the party right now are just too out of touch. I think they don't realize that they are playing by the wrong rule book and they truly don't understand that America isn't like them.

I don't know what the answer is except to support the people who get it and not the people who don't.

I'm telling you, those images work. We know this because we see the Democrats continue to successfully things to the public which the public doesn't want. We know it because we see advertisers use it. We know it because we see the gaps in the race/gender voting patterns.

I think about that exchange from Men in Black a lot as well -- it's very astute.

Anthony, Very true. And whenever some was asked to come up with a "replace" they mumbles something about freedom for insurance companies. That's a horrible message! How does that help an average voter believe they will get help? How does that not just reinforce the idea that we're all about Big Business? I can't think of a worse counter argument than that one.

Here an interesting National Review article (which relates to the debate at hand) about the importance of storytelling vs stasitics.-------In the past two presidential cycles, we spent billions of dollars on political TV ads that many Americans skipped or ignored. And those billions ended up filling the coffers of entertainment conglomerates whose news and programming relentlessly attack and caricature our side all year round.

We aren’t just throwing money down the drain on commercials. We’re funding the Left’s storytelling and programming machine. And we’re the smart guys?

Why do we keep ignoring the importance of story? And why are we surprised when, even when we win elections, our national debt piles up, and the administrative state expands?

Why haven’t we developed studios or messaging tanks that support our worldview?

I've been offline for about 36 hours due to technical difficulties. Let's change our name from conservatives to the freedom party. Hard for me to get too excited about it right now. If we couldn't win this past time around, the task seems monumental. One party caters to people by giving them "stuff" and rationalizing that the "wealthy" only got that way through good fortune. Freedom works well if the majority of people feel we are headed in the right direction. The more people that are working and have something to lose, the more likely the positive message will be. First, things have to crash to teach them liberalism has consequences as well.

To some extent, I obviously agree with you that image control is key. But the left has shown an uncanny ability to smear the image of Republicans even if they have to manufacture a lie to do so. This American Thinker article is on point, but Republicans have a long way to go to counter slanderous images created by the left. I still hear people, even moderates say, “What a disaster it would have been to have an idiot like Sarah Palin as vice president,” despite the unparalleled idiocy shown daily by Biden. The rush to destroy Rubio as a clueless anti-science evangelical has already begun.

Anthony’s National Review article addresses this point, why spend a billion dollars on easily ignored campaign commercials instead of creating new media outlets? I agree. The image change is important, but there has to be an effort to reach an uninformed and disengaged public with that image. FOX and talk radio aren’t enough.

Tennessee Jed, love-love-love including freedom somewhere/anywhere in the party name. We can deal with the inevitable "Well, what about freedom the marry the opposite sex" and the other inevitable socially minded issues on a case by case basis. Get them with the name, let the rest sink into their heads.

Oh, Andrew, is it too much backwards-looking for this 1970 kid to want to party like it's the 80s instead of the 50s? No offense to the 50s mind you, the birth decade of rock and roll. I just loves me some common sense Ronnie Reagan, far hipper than the Dems will ever give him credit for being.

I think it's a valid point. I firmly believe that conservatives (and Republicans in particular) need to think about a full-on assault on society. They need to find all kinds of ways to revive their brand in every context. Without that, they will continue to struggle.

I love the idea of adding "Freedom" to the name. Let's just hope that if they do it, they don't get stooopid: "We're now the 'Party of Freedom Where Possible Given the Needs of Personal Responsibility And Moral Requirements.' Our acronym is SUCKERS."

wahsatchmo, Exactly. Excellent link. Unfortunately, conservatives think it's unseemly to engage in even basic marketing, much less the advanced course. They consider it deceptive. They need to get over that.

That’s perfect Patriot…”FIGHT!” I’m a product of the ‘60s & ‘70s, and know, trying to reason with a counter-culturist is stupid. The whole point was ”sticking it to the man…rules are for the other people…if it feels good do it…the ends justify the means.” we all know the mantras. In other words they follow no rules, that’s your problem.

Fight dirty if you must, and fight to win, humiliate them whenever possible. I’ve argued with these assholes for forty years, (on both sides, Carter cured me) if you press hard they’ll bend and break.

You must have good sound-bites, it’s sad, but you get beyond six words you’ve blown it. This is salesmanship 101, keep it short, and sweet.

Object studies. Use real examples of liberal excess, like Patriot said with the derelict in Cleveland and her Obama phone, or the woman in Detroit waiting for Obama’s stash. The union outburst, but not with the sympathetic camera of the MSM.

Let the women and minorities speak, but if you deviate have the Libertarian side do the talking, be hip! Not Poindexter, or some stiff dweeb who’d be as much fun to hang around with as a Dominican Priest (it might be interesting but not fun).

Great article on the storytelling. Unfortunately, the more I consider it, the more I find wrong with the conservative/Republican approach.

For example, when Rush's show was new it was filled with little storytelling devices. He had comic sketches and song parodies every day. That's the stuff people really talked about. Now he barely does either and just spends hours pontificating. Other conservative radio hosts have gone through similar shifts in format. And sadly, they all got super-serious when they should have (and in Beck's case, was begged by his audience to) gotten more fun.

And then there's the fact that conservatives don't seem to want to give anything away. Every one of them claims to have all the ideas and answers, if you're just willing to buy the book, the internet subscription, the magazine subscription, the special members-only pass, the movie, etc. etc. etc. If you really have the ideas that will save the country, and if you really care about saving the country, you should be giving that knowledge away. You should be shouting on a street corner like a crazy person if you think it is that important to share. Making people pay to be rescued is deeply, deeply cynical.

And for the relative handful of people that are getting it right, they are shoved into the corner. I think Red Eye is hilarious and entertaining. The only problem is, it's on in the frickin' middle of the night! Like, so late that the 20-somethings aren't even staying up for it. WUWT!? Change the name and get that $#!+ on at 9 o'clock!

And another thing, the success of both the Fox broadcast network and Fox News defied all expectations. There's just one problem: the broadcast network has no evening news of its own, which is asinine given the existence of Fox News! This is such a no-brainer it makes me grind my teeth! Just frickin' simulcast your evening news show on the broadcast network. I'm not saying that I think Fox News does an excellent job of reporting, but at least get that conservative spin up alongside the Big Three and their leftist spin.

Every one of them claims to have all the ideas and answers, if you're just willing to buy the book, the internet subscription, the magazine subscription, the special members-only pass, the movie, etc. etc. etc. If you really have the ideas that will save the country, and if you really care about saving the country, you should be giving that knowledge away. You should be shouting on a street corner like a crazy person if you think it is that important to share. Making people pay to be rescued is deeply, deeply cynical.

... is the point I've been trying to make for a long time now. People look to talk radio as the leader of the ideological movement, as the voice of conservatism. IT'S NOT. They do NOT care about ideology or conservatism. They care about their profits. They are in this for the money. That means their incentives are not what you think they are.

Anthony: That's a great NRO article, and only about 5 years after Libertas and later the Breitbart sites were saying the same thing. It's good that the "mainstream" conservatives represented by National Review (aka National Topsider) has finally stumbled onto something important.

The question is, where is the conservative media? Perhaps the fate of the superb miniseries "The Kennedys" can give us a clue. The show was disavowed by it's originators and sold to a third tier cable channel - thanks to pressure from the left. Then there's "The Path to 9/11", where Reid et al threatened to have the ABC broadcasting license pulled. Chilling effect - much?

Which begs the question, just how free are we if media with a different viewpoint from the ruling party simply can not be made? Is it hypocritical to criticize Putin and Hugo Chavez if this country is effectively doing the same thing?

So is Arron Sorkin, and HBO and MSNBC and Harvey and Bob Weinstein and so forth and so forth. This doesn't seem to be hindering the left's long march through the culture. On the contrary, it makes it possible.

K, I'm not after purity at all. I'm after snapping people out of a delusion.

I'm trying to get people to understand that when someone doesn't have the same incentives as you, they are not looking out for your interests. That means they are not doing what is best for you and your movement, they are doing what is best for themselves. As long as the two are the same, then you're fine, but when they diverge, you need to realize you can't rely on them.

The analogy to Sorkin, Weinstein, etc. isn't really valid because they are entertainers who ram their politics into their product. They aren't seen as the voice of anything. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to want to see talk radio as political leaders who also happen to entertain. Big difference.

As for National Review, it is nice that they finally see the problem. Maybe in ten years they'll come up with a plan to do something about it.

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Okay, so this is sorta OT, but what the hell. Anybody who wasn't listening today, take a look a this: Rush said..."Just Walk Away, Republicans. So back out of this and make sure you don't have any fingerprints on this at all. AND: Barack? I Hope He Succeeds (in Going Over the Cliff)! I'm saying, let Obama take this country where he wants to take it. Let's find out where that is. 'Cause there are some people who still don't get it".

Andrew, My 'yo mama' comment had nothing to do with a debate or a snappy comeback--just trying to point out how long the phrase has been around. I was simply trying to say that when I was in my early teens, 'yo mama' didn't have anything else with it. A conversation could go something like this:

K, the trouble is there are no real liberal counterpoints to the Rush Limbaughs. At the same time, there aren't any liberals claiming to know how to save the country and selling loads of crap based on that claim.

Jen, that's essentially what Charles Krauthammer, Jim Geraghty, and a bunch of other people are saying. Seriously, Let. It. Burn. Let Obama have everything he wants, make sure every Republican congressman votes "Present" on these budget demands, and then force him and the other Democrats to take all the blame for what follows. I hope Boehner, McConnell and company are listening.

I don't think walking away is a good thing -- and that's what I've heard from some quarters: "walk away and let him go off the cliff."

I think that's horrible advice. That just leave us with the blame. They need to say, "fine, Obama gets what he wants." Say it very publicly, then drive the agenda toward massive tax hikes and the elimination of all deductions.

Then step back and watch the economy tank or watch Obama back peddle like mad and try to protect the rich and the crony.

If we just walk away and let everything fail, we get 100% of the blame.

T-Rav, Here is a little more: "Folks, that's gonna continue happening no matter what the Republicans do until somebody comes along and figures a way to stuff that back down the Democrats' throats. Until somebody comes along and figures out how to stuff it back down the media's throats and the Democrat Party's throats, the Republican Party is gonna get blamed for everything no matter what they do."

And this too: "Very publicly walk away from the talks so that whatever happens vis-a-vis the cliff is perceived to happen -- well, the real point will be to flush Obama out. Find out. I would suggest to people who really believe Obama is concerned about his second term and his legacy, he doesn't want a recession, the only way to flush that out is to come dangerously close to allowing it all to happen, and the way you do that is by pulling out of the negotiations and offer no resistance. My only point is if the Republicans offer no resistance to what Obama wants, we'll find out just how willing he is to take the country over the cliff."

I'm a little concerned about posting too many links. I have two of them, but since we've been taking it easy on the link posting, I don't want to jinx anything by making stuff crash to where comments start to disappear.

For one thing, you can't play chicken that way. ALL the blame will fall on the Republicans immediately and their ranks will break because they aren't suicidal. And at that point, if I'm Obama, I want the fiscal cliff to happen because no matter what happen it will be the Republicans' fault and he will get a pass to do all the things he wants for the next four years and Hillary four after that to fix the mess "the Republicans caused."

Moreover, read the quote and ask yourself what the point to doing this is? This advice translates into: fight for the sake of proving you will fight. What do we get out of it? What agenda do we want to put in place? This is just pandering to angry listeners who aren't really thinking but are just emoting.

Andrew, I was just merely showing everyone here (who didn't listen today) what was being said, and I'm not saying I agree with it. We already know who comments here on a regular basis (I don't know who reads, but doesn't comment), so you and I know the audience here is dwarfed by Rush's audience.

I didn't want to copy/paste everything, and tried to pick out things that were already being discussed.

It seems like all of us monitor a vast amount of things, and I like to see what others read that I don't. I click on most of the links (if I don't, it's because I don't have the time to read them, like right now--time to cut and run, LOL).

On the quotes, I know what you're doing and I'm not saying these are your ideas. I'm just pointing out an apparent flaw in the argument he is making -- it's a plan of pointless attack because it has no goal and it will create a huge blowback that will destroy our side, not theirs.

I think the Republicans can't afford top give the Dems what they want because if they do then there will be no elections in four years. They keep talking about the Fiscal Cliff being the taxes but this is a non issue compared to the deficit. The only way to fix the country is to reduce the deficit before it gets "reduced" for us.

I heard that Pelosi was the motivator behind everything Congress did in the first two years of OBama's term because OBama offered almost no input. Clint Eastwood was very prescient with his "Empty Chair" remark. I think the GOP needs to take their focus off of OBama. Essentially he should announce that they are seeking to compromise with HArry Reid and the Senate because quite frankly if Obama did not do his job while democrats had control he isn't going to do it now.

Obama is just throwing crap out that is nonsense. We have to ignore him and try and get a bill the Senate will pass. Then let him veto it if he has the guts.

Andrew, as long as you don't call me stupid for quoting this stuff. :)

I know we aren't going to get the talking head numbnuts to pull their heads out of their asses, but we can talk amongst ourselves to wise up on what they are doing. Until...we can come up with a way to shut them down (in other words, to quit saying stupid things).

You are right that the pendulum swings both ways but there have been instances where parties have gone by the wayside. Essentially the Whigs died out over the anti-Slavery debate. They had m any defections and the problem was they could no longer act nationally.

This is where the GOP may be in real trouble. There is no state that I can think of where it is not possible for a democrat to win a Senate bid. However there are some that it appears the GOP can't win. It is ironic because the key to the Progs success appears to be holding the urban markets.

Andrew

I was stunned looking at the map of California on election day. Judging just by area covered in Red compared to Blue you'd think the GOP won California by a Landslide. The Blue areas were concentrated on the Urban centers. LA, San Fransisco, etc. The reason we lose Cali is we lost those populated areas by a great disparity. Florida was the same way. We lost Dade county 80/20. The rest of the state ouside of South Florida went Red for the most part.

I think it is safe to say that what we have is an inner city problem. Which makes sense if we can't win the Yo Mama contest.

Continuing on the topic of better marketing, a very common and effective way of selling something is to make people aware of a problem they have--especially one they didn't know they had before--and make your product/service/idea the solution to the problem. Ironically (or maybe not) the RWR talkers have mastered this: "The GOP won't listen to you, so listen to me instead." But that's another subject. The major concern is that in order to use that tactic, you must adhere to Alinsky's 11th rule.

I think it does, a considerable difference. The difference, however is at the level of cultural assumptions. When you hear or see a bunch of programs that share the same cultural assumptions - e.g. "I am my brother's keeper", then those assumptions can become the audience's assumptions. Particularly if 90 percent of the programs they watch share them.

I'm not concerned about what Limbaugh says in particular because he generally and reliably endorses the set of cultural assumptions that I believe in - e.g. personal freedom is desirable and an economically superior alternative to a command economy. IOWs, he, and talk radio in general are one of the few outlets where I share their cultural assumptions. If we're going to turn the tide, a lot more such outlets are needed while keeping the old ones.

tryanmax:the trouble is there are no real liberal counterpoints to the Rush Limbaughs

Not sure if you mean "counterparts" here. Assuming that's what you mean, I would disagree. I think most of the MSNBC pundits are explicitly Limbaugh's "evil twins". The left failed to get talk radio, so they went cable instead. Chris Matthews et al seem to me to be a left mirror image to how the left sees Limbaugh.

Indi, I think the economy is in trouble. The world is tipping back into recession. Now is the perfect time to tell the public, "we're giving Obama everything he wants... blame him." Then you push him to take even bigger tax hikes than he wants and you use him to wipe out as many deductions as you can.

tryanmax, If you want proof of how well that works, look at drug companies. Who knew that simple butt pain could become Anus-eo-ouchous, and that I need a pill to treat that? If you tell people they have a problem, they will believe it. And if you offer them a solution, they will buy it. The democrats have been manufacturing problems for years.

Max, It shouldn't be hopeless. Unfortunately, I honestly don't think our establishment -- the party leadership, the conservative media, talk radio are up to the task.

Right now requires a very careful (but simple) strategy of manipulating Obama into a corner where he will get all the blame for things we will force upon him because we will use his own rhetoric against him.

Sadly, I know that won't happen... indeed, it isn't happening. But that's how it should be played.

K, I agree completely. It makes a HUGE difference to have Hollywood warping the culture against us. We desperately need to fix that.

But there is a difference between that and Rush. If Sorkin does something truly obnoxious, it get's blown off because he's not considered a spokesman... he's just private citizen idiot. Rush has been made into a spokesman. So when he does something stupid, it reflects on us. That's why Rush needs to be held to a higher standard because the public sees him representing us... they don't see Sorkin representing liberalism.

That said, I really do like Rush and I think that 90% of the time, he is helpful. But in the last couple years, he has also done some harm... as have other talk radio guys.

And again, my point is not to wipe these guys out, it's to get them to stop doing the harm and to start doing more good again.

Andrew, yes, it's the one which proclaimed the superiority of milk chocolate over dark chocolate, and you're an idiot if you disagree. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

(Whoever might respond to this--whether or not you sockpuppet, you'd better be more inventive than calling me a racist. That's just too easy.)

I suggest, however, that if Limbaugh is a "spokesman" for conservatives it's because he's been "Alinskyzed"(tm) as such. He's the target that has been picked to be isolated and attacked.

The solution to that could be to do the same to the left spokepersons. If we can just get the satellite transmission codes, we can seize the audio channel and use overdubbing to make people like Chris Matthews appear to be saying completely stupid stuff............wait.

K, I'm not sure if I mean "counterparts" or "counterpoints" since one would necessarily provide the other. Language can get confusing.

But to address your point, it isn't so much that Matthews or Olberman or Maddow stand opposite of Limbaugh and Beck and Ingraham, it's that they operate in very different ways. The former set all simply trash Republicans and raise up Democrats as the party of solutions. The latter set trash everybody, claim to have the solutions themselves, then set those alleged solutions behind a paywall. That's what I mean by there being no counterpart/counterpoint.

Ӏf уοur oven thermοmеter does not match your oven temperature settіng, yοu will wаnt to have уour oven calibratеԁ.There arе plentу of eleсtrіc oνеns that ωill still knocκ уour socks off. I don't like pizza sauces, so I opt to use two cans of diced tomatoes as the first layer-one can of plain and the other of Italian.

Fгom the glass blowing factοгy that is still in operation, to a live bakеry just ωhere you can baκe your have goodіes, running farmѕ that you can сheсk out аnd feed the animals, and гunning pottегy mills.At thе veгy least 51 % will have to be com, though ordinarily up to 75% is utiliѕeԁ.(Υоu aге аiming for the regularity of ρeanut butter.